Search

Objective: The clinical symptoms of schizophrenia are associated with serious social, quality of life and functioning alterations. Typically, data on health utilities are not available in clinical studies in schizophrenia. This makes the economic evaluation of schizophrenia treatments challenging. The purpose of this article was to provide a mapping function to predict unobserved utility values in patients with schizophrenia from the available clinical and socio-demographic information.Methods: The analysis was performed using data from EuroSC, a 2-year, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in France (N = 288), Germany (N = 618), and the UK (N = 302), totalling 1208 patients. Utility was calculated based on the EQ-5D questionnaire. The relationships between the utility values and the patients' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale--PANSS, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia--CDSS, Global Assessment of Functioning--GAF, extra-pyramidal symptoms measured by Barnes Akathisia Scale-BAS, age, sex, country, antipsychotic type) were modelled using a random and a fixed individual effects panel linear model.Results: The analysis demonstrated the prediction ability of the used parameters for estimating utility measures in patients with schizophrenia. Although there are small variations between countries, the same variables appear to be the key predictors. From a clinical perspective, age, gender, psychopathology, and depression were the most important predictors associated with the EQ-5D.Conclusion: This paper proposed a reliable, robust and easy-to-apply mapping method to estimate EQ-5D utilities based on demographic and clinical measures in schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Schizophrenia has a variety of clinical profiles, disabilities and outcomes requiring responsive management and the devotion of considerable resources. The primary objective of the European Schizophrenia Cohort (EuroSC) is to relate the types of treatment and methods of care to clinical outcome. Secondary objectives include the assessment of treatment needs in relation to outcome, the calculation of resource consumption associated with different methods of care, and the identification of prognostic factors.Method: EuroSC is a naturalistic follow-up of a cohort of people aged 18 to 64 years, suffering from schizophrenia and in contact with secondary psychiatric services. The study was done in nine European centres, in France (N = 288), Germany (N = 618), and Britain (N = 302). Participants were interviewed at 6-monthly intervals for a total of 2 years. This initial paper describes the methods used and presents clinical and social baseline data.Results: The clinical and socio-demographic differences between patients from the different countries were small. However, patients from Britain were considerably more likely than their continental counterparts to have a history of homelessness, rooflessness or imprisonment, even when social and clinical differences between the samples were controlled.Conclusions: The samples were largely similar in clinical terms. Thus, the social differences between the samples seem likely to be due more to the societal context and may reflect relatively benign situations in the continental locations of our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study evaluated the humanistic burden on caregivers of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) as the disease progresses.Methods: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional study of patients with aNSCLC and their caregivers conducted in France, Germany, and Italy between 2015 and 2016. Data were collected by medical chart review and patient and caregiver questionnaires. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) was used to evaluate patient and caregiver health status. Caregivers also completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI).Results: The population for the analysis consisted of 427 caregivers (mean age 53.5 years; 72.6% female; 54.9% spouse; 36.2% in full-time employment) and 427 matched patients (mean age 66.2 years; 68.6% male). Most (69.5%) patients were receiving first-line therapy for advanced disease. Patients' caregivers provided a mean of 29.5 h of support per week. Significant differences in EQ-5D-3L scores were observed between caregivers of patients receiving first and later lines of therapy in France (0.87 vs. 0.78; p = 0.0055). Among employed caregivers, overall work impairment was considerable and ranged from 21.1% in Germany to 30.4% in France and 29.7% in Italy. Caregivers of patients receiving later lines of therapy in France rated their own health status as significantly worse than did those caring for patients receiving first-line therapy (82.7 vs. 72.9; p = 0.0039).Conclusions: Informal caregivers provided the majority of support for patients with advanced NSCLC and their caregiving activities impose a significant humanistic burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most asthma patients have mild disease, although the burden of mild asthma is not well understood nor studied. Some evidence suggests that many patients with mild asthma experience suboptimal symptom control and exacerbations. This study characterizes the burden of illness and treatment patterns among patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mild asthma, defined as GINA Step 1 or Step 2, and residing in China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, or the United States.Methods: The Respiratory Disease-Specific Programme prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted with primary care and specialty physicians in each of the eight countries. Physician and patient surveys assessed demographic and clinical characteristics, frequency and timing of asthma symptoms, exacerbations, and rescue inhaler usage, the most recent FEV1% predicted, and healthcare utilization. GINA Step was determined by prescribed treatment regimen. GINA Step 1 patients were prescribed as-needed reliever medication and Step 2 required treatment with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid, leukotriene receptor antagonist, or theophylline. Treatment adherence was assessed with the Morisky Medication Adherence scale, disease control with the Asthma Control Test, and work and activity impairments with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale.Results: The sample included 1115 GINA Step 1 and 2 patients, with 53% classified as Step 2. Overall asthma control was suboptimal, with reports of nocturnal symptoms (40.6%), symptom worsening (10.5%), and rescue inhaler usage in the last 4 weeks (33.6%). 25% of patients were uncontrolled. The overall mean number of exacerbations in the last 12 months was 0.4, with a higher frequency of exacerbations in Step 2 patients who also experienced more exacerbations requiring treatment intensification, an emergency department visit, or hospitalization.Conclusion: Mild asthma imposes a substantial burden on patients, establishing the need for comprehensive management plans and ongoing support for treatment adherence.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha2a (IFN) prolongs progression-free survival to >10 months, which is comparable with sunitinib as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The two regimens have different tolerability profiles; therefore, costs for managing adverse events may be an important factor in selecting therapy.Methods: Costs of managing adverse events affecting patients with metastatic RCC eligible for treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib were evaluated using a linear decision analytical model. Management costs were calculated from the published incidence of adverse events and health-care costs for treating adverse events in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy.Results: Adverse event management costs were higher for sunitinib than for bevacizumab plus IFN. The average cost per patient for the management of grade 3-4 adverse events was markedly lower with bevacizumab plus IFN compared with sunitinib in the United Kingdom (euro1475 vs euro804), Germany (euro1785 vs euro1367), France (euro2590 vs euro1618) and Italy (euro891 vs euro402). The main cost drivers were lymphopaenia, neutropaenia, thrombocytopaenia, leucopaenia and fatigue/asthaenia for sunitinib; and proteinuria, fatigue/asthaenia, bleeding, anaemia and gastrointestinal perforation for bevacizumab plus IFN.Conclusion: The costs of managing adverse events are lower for bevacizumab plus IFN than for sunitinib. The potential for cost savings should be considered when selecting treatments for RCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]